Does a properly filed application for post-conviction DNA testing toll AEDPA's limitation period under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I, Does a properly filed application for post-conviction DNA testing constitute "a properly filed application for state post-conviction or . other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending," as to toll AEDPA's limitation period pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ; §2244(d)(2), a question the Circuit Courts of Appeals are divided on, which has deprived petitioners’ of’ their right to Federal Habeas Corpus review, an issue of first impression with this Court? II. Did the Circuit Court of Appeals err in finding the District Court did not violate the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. §2254 Federal Habeas Corpus proceedings when the Court impermissibly vacated its own Final Order that held Rowe's habeas petition timely filed, whereupon the Court then : _ permitted Respondent to relitigate timeliness that was already finalized, thereby circumventing the concepts of finality, an issue of first , with this Court? . III. Did the Circuit Court of Appeals violated Rowe's Due Process and Equal , Protection rights when the Court held statutory and equitable tolling of AEDPA's limitation period did not apply to his habeas petition, and that the State Post-Conviction Court did not forfeit his right to Federal , Habeas Corpus Review — without notice as to create a miscarriage of justice where other Courts have granted such tolling? i